Philosophical Presentation in Ptolemy’s Harmonics: The Timaeus as a Model for Organization Cristian Tolsa HANKS TO his astronomical observations recorded in the Almagest and the text of his Canobic Inscription,1 we can place Ptolemy’s activity in the middle of the second T 2 century at Alexandria. His work is mainly valued in the history of science for its contribution to planetary theory, but that same scientific interest that Ptolemy awakens has in part obscured other, not strictly mathematical features of his works.3 In fact, it is only recently that scholars have begun to study sys- tematically the technical writings of the Greco-Roman period as cultural artefacts in relation to their contemporary intel- lectual context, beyond how their contents contribute to the history of their particular disciplines. The main feature generally shared by the texts of this period is their compilatory character: originality of content is now not 1 The observations were made between 127 and 141 A.D. in Alexandria: 2 O. Pedersen, A Survey of the Almagest (New York 2010) 416, 422. The inscrip- tion was erected in 146/7 in Canopus, a suburb of this city: A. Jones, “Ptol- emy’s Canobic Inscription and Heliodorus’ Observation Reports,” SCIAMVS 6 (2005) 53–98, at 53. 2 As to the relative chronology of the treatises, it has been shown that the Canobic Inscription predated the Almagest: N. T. Hamilton, N. M. Swerdlow, and G. J. Toomer, “The Canobic Inscription: Ptolemy’s Earliest Work,” in J. L. Bergren et al. (eds.), From Ancient Omens to Statistical Mechanics (Copen- hagen 1987) 55–75. The Almagest itself is mentioned in the Tetrabiblos, Plan- etary Hypotheses, Planispherium, Handy Tables, Geography. 3 The skillful arrangement of such a technically difficult work as the Al- magest has been nevertheless long noted: Pedersen, A Survey of the Almagest 25. ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 688–705 2015 Cristian Tolsa CRISTIAN TOLSA 689 as important as proper (and original) arrangement. This was the result of a number of factors, mainly the sense of ac- cumulated knowledge passed down through tradition, and the increasing educational demands of the leisured classes. In re- lation to this, authors resorted to a series of conventions which, in one way or another, served to generate interest and defend their own projects. Ptolemy was no exception. He wrote trea- tises on a variety of subjects, mostly related to astronomy and spherical geometry but also comprising optics, harmonics, and epistemology. The term he most frequently used to refer to his best-known works, σύνταξις—system, arrangement, organiza- tion, composition—is an apt description of their compilatory character.4 These three works—the Almagest, the Tetrabiblos, and the Geography—along with the Harmonics and the Optics certainly are, among Ptolemy’s treatises, the ones which most conform to our sense of an exhaustive treatment.5 In this paper I will show how Ptolemy conformed to presentational strategies at- tested for other writers of the period, in a more or less conven- tional manner, in the preface of the Almagest, and in a quite unusual way in the Harmonics, in particular regarding what I will call ‘philosophical presentation’.6 4 The title of the Almagest is Μαθηµατικὴ σύνταξις, but it is also called ὑποµνηµατισµός (memorandum) at Alm. I.2 p.608.8 (ed. Heiberg). Ptolemy also refers to the Tetrabiblos as σύνταξις in Tetr. 1.1.1, 3.2.5, 3.7.2, and 3.12.8; in 1.3.19 he speaks of “iatromathematical treatises” (ἰατροµαθηµα- τικῶν συντάξεων) using this term as well. The Geography is titled Γεωγραφικὴ ὑφήγησις (guide, description), but is referred to as σύνταξις at Geogr. 7.4.14 and 8.1.6; in other places Ptolemy also designates Marinos’ geographical treatises with this term: 1.6.2, 1.15.1, 1.17.1, 1.18.3, and 1.19.1. The term is frequently used by authors referring to their own compilatory treatises in Ptolemy’s time and before: Vett. Val. 108.18, Hero Def. proem. 1.4, Phil. Byz. Belop. 52.47, Hypsicl. Elem. proem. 5 The rest are either related to the planetary models worked out in the Al- magest—Planetary Hypotheses, Handy Tables, Canobic Inscription—or deal with rather specific topics in spherical geometry—Phases of the Fixed Stars, Analem- ma, Planispherium—and philosophy—On the Criterion and Commanding Faculty. 6 Ptolemy, unlike e.g. Galen, has not yet been studied from this perspec- tive, although recent work has been carried out on the philosophical content ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 688–705 690 PHILOSOPHICAL PRESENTATION IN THE HARMONICS Prefatory conventions in the Almagest As can be expected, these conventions are generally observed in the prefaces, and indeed the preface of the Almagest could be used as a sort of compendium of self-presentational motifs. First of all, the reader notices that the work is addressed to a certain Syrus, whom Ptolemy apostrophizes with a simple vocative, not giving any further detail.7 ___ his work: see J. Feke, “Ptolemy’s Defense of Theoretical Philosophy,” Apeiron 45 (2012) 61–90; L. C. Taub, Ptolemy’s Universe: The Natural Philosophical and Ethical Foundations of Ptolemy’s Astronomy (Chicago 1993). For Galen see the essays in C. Gill et al. (eds.), Galen and the World of Knowledge (Cambridge 2009); and S. P. Mattern, Galen and the Rhetoric of Healing (Baltimore 2008). For a mathematician close to Ptolemy’s time see S. Cuomo, Pappus and the Mathematics of Late Antiquity (Cambridge 2000); see also the essays about tech- nical writers in L. C. Taub and A. Doody (eds.), Authorial Voices in Greco- Roman Technical Writing (Trier 2007), and J. König and T. Whitmarsh (eds.), Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire (Cambridge 2007). 7 Probably for this reason, an anonymous commentator on the Tetrabiblos (Εἰς τὴν τετράβιβλον τοῦ Πτολεµαίου Ἐξηγητὴς ἀνώνυµος [Basel 1559] 1; now R. Caballero-Sánchez, ΜΗΝΗ 13 [2013] 225) implausibly considered Syrus an invented dedicatee (πέπλασται), and also mentions a tradition that Syrus was “a physician trained in this sort of mathematics” (ἰατρὸς ἦν οὗτος ἀχθεὶς καὶ διὰ τούτων τῶν µαθηµάτων), probably only inspired by Ptol- emy’s comparison between medicine and astrology at the beginning of the treatise (see n.4 above). Despite the use as slave name in comedy and Lucian—Eriphus fr.6 (Ath. 137D), Anaxandrides fr.19 (Ath. 176A); Luc. Tox. 80, Bis acc. 23—Σύρος, literally ‘Syrian’, was a quite common name in the Hellenistic and Roman east, especially in Asia Minor and Egypt. A total of 657 individuals with this name are recorded in Egypt; cf. the 6549 named Πτολεµαῖος or the only 28 named Πάππος. The few double names in- cluding Σύρος (twelve in papyri, four in inscriptions) might give us an idea of the reasons for its popularity: an individual named Σύρος in Lycia was also called Συριάρχης (TAM II 1225), which connects the name with notions of political domination of Syria, a quite pertinent issue in Hellenistic Egypt. Another possible connotation may come from the phonetic similarity with the name of the Egyptian god Osiris, who gave rise to a number of popular names such as Πετοσῖρις. It may be significant that an Egyptian named Σύρος also bears the name Ψενοσείρις (I.Akoris 4); furthermore, Σύρα is almost always coupled with Ἰσάριον, derived from Isis, when it appears as a double name (8 out of 11 cases). Papyri have been searched in papyri.info; inscriptions in PHI; attestations of individuals in Egypt in Trismegistos (last ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 688–705 CRISTIAN TOLSA 691 As J. König remarks in his study of prefatory conventions in Galen, compilatory writers frequently seek external arguments for writing, feeling—consciously or not—that a not-wholly original work would be difficult to justify per se. Suggesting that they were writing on request was a typical solution to this.8 Here, as often in Galen,9 no details are given about the ad- dressee, implying that the author does not care about the prestige of his friends. Syrus is actually addressed in the same way in most of the other astronomical works, including the Tetrabiblos. Ptolemy is only a little more specific in the preface of the Analemma, expressing his wish that the work will help Syrus in understanding the theory (si quid tibi videmur ad intellec- tum coauxisse, II 189.14). This work deals with a special tech- nique of spherical geometry used for measuring the course of the sun, and it supposes previous reading in the field not sup- plied by Ptolemy,10 so it seems plausible that its dedicatee had expressly asked for it. Choosing a friend who was genuinely interested rather than a powerful potential patron had the ad- vantage of displaying a credible didactic situation with which the reader could identify, even if the addressee did not seem to be a pupil in the normal sense of the word.11 ___ consulted 3/6/2015). 8 J. König, “Conventions of Prefatory Self-Presentation in Galen’s On the Order of My Own Books,” in C. Gill et al. (eds.), Galen and the World of Knowledge (Cambridge 2009) 35–58, at 43–44. 9 König, in Galen and the World of Knowledge 51. 10 N. Sidoli, Ptolemy’s Mathematical Approach: Applied Mathematics in the Second Century (diss. Univ. Toronto 2004) 184. 11 The majority of Galen’s dedicatees are of this type, a partial exception being Flavius Boethus, who in addition to being interested in medicine was of consular rank: see W. A. Johnson, Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities (Oxford 2010) 78; contrast the paternal way in which the astrologer Paul of Alexandria addresses his un- known dedicatee, ὦ φίλε παῖ Κρονάµων (Elem.